Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Clause 10

Apprenticeship frameworks: interpretation

Siôn Simon: I beg to move amendment 157, in clause 10, page 6, line 14, leave out from sector to end of line 16 and insert stated in it..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 163, 171, 173 to 178, 186 and 187.

Siôn Simon: Good morning, Mrs. Humble. We are about to discuss technical, drafting amendments. Subsection (2)(b) of clause 10 requires that the apprenticeship sector concerned must be stated in the framework. Amendment 157 is intended to make it clear that only one apprenticeship sector will be stated in each apprenticeship framework. The original drafting on that point was ambiguous.
Clause 15 enables the Secretary of State to make an order providing certain transitional provisions for an apprenticeship framework. The technical, drafting amendment to clause 15 has a mirror amendment to clause 20 on Wales. Amendments 163 and 171 put it beyond doubt that the sector to which the clauses refer is an apprenticeship sector as defined under clause 38.
Clause 23 provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct the chief executive of Skills Funding to prepare modifications to the specification of apprenticeship standards for England and submit them to the Secretary of State. Clause 23(4) makes it clear that the Secretary of State may not make an order bringing modifications into effect unless he is satisfied that the modified specification complies with the requirements of the content of the specification under clause 25. Amendment 173 is a technical, drafting amendment merely intended to achieve consistency with clause 22(2), which deals with the same point when an order is made bringing a specification of standards into effect for the first time. Amendment 174 is a mirror amendment in respect of Wales.
I draw attention to several drafting amendments to clause 30, which sets out the meaning of apprenticeship agreement in England and Wales. The agreement will be a contract entered into between the apprentice and the employer. It will contain terms that will be set out in a prescribed form. It is intended that the agreement will include, among other things, on-the-job training and learning away from the work station. Amendment 175 reflects the fact that clause 30(4) is making provision about circumstances in which an agreement will be treated as meeting one of the criteria for being an apprenticeship agreement under subjection (2). Removing apprenticeship from the first line of page 14 of the Bill avoids circularity in the provision.
Amendment 176 ensures that the three-year period specified under clause 30(5) is instead specified under subsection (4)(a), the subsection to which it relates. Amendments 177 and 178 are consequent on that amendment, and amendment 186 corrects a cross-reference under clause 79. Finally, amendment 187 is a technical, drafting amendment to make it clear that the statutory instrument containing regulations made under clauses 5 or 9 is subject to an annulment by resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.

John Hayes: The amendments are technical and require no further comment from me on the basis of incomprehension and the need to press on.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

English issuing authority

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 11, page 6, leave out line 20.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 158 and 165.

John Hayes: We return to our efforts to make this bad Bill better with enthusiasm and vigourand if the second is rather less than the first this morning, it is because the lobster thermidor, which the Minister specifically recommended to me and on which I dined in the small hours, rested more heavily on me in the slightly larger hours than I would have wished; however, not as heavily as the Bill rests on his shoulders, and we have tabled the amendment in that spirit.
The explanatory notes make it clear that sector skills councils will issue apprenticeship frameworks for England. The Opposition support that. I have said before that we strongly support the role of sector skills councils for reasons that we have set out and for many of the reasons set out by the Minister. Their closeness to employers means that they can articulate their skills needs and ensure that frameworks match those needs.
Subsection (1)(a) allows a body to issue apprenticeship frameworks generally, rather than for a specific sector. The risk is that that could lead to generic apprenticeships. As I have argued, we are anxious that apprenticeships be tailored at every level and in all ways to particular needs. The prospect of a ubiquitous apprenticeship does not sit comfortably with our vision. The Government have started to advance amendments by which frameworks will relate specifically to one sector. Indeed, we have heard something of those and will no doubt hear more. I am at a loss to understand why they do not leave this contradiction alone all together and step beyond it.
When taking the evidence of expert witnesses, it was made clear to the Committee that generic apprenticeshipsor ubiquitous apprenticeships, as I have described themare not worth the paper they are written on because they are not respected by employers and so do not add to the employability of apprentices. In the evidence session, the CBI said that the most important thing is that
the programme is more fit for purposedelivering the sort of skills that are in demand by businesses.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 6, Q5.]
We must therefore ensure that frameworks are of the highest quality.
I do not know whether you, Mrs. Humble, or other Committee members shared my feelings last week, but I felt that I was beginning to deliver this point with persuasiveness sufficient to change the Ministers mind. I felt once or twice that I touched his heart. I do not know whether it was due to the intellectual force of my argument or the silky persuasiveness with which it was delivered, but on occasion he looked as if he had the stomach to acknowledge the force of our argument and the weakness of his own. That proves beyond doubt that the way to a mans stomach is through his heart. He did not, however, go as far as he might have done on the frameworks. The purpose of the amendment is to push him that extra mile.
I think that all Committee members, and certainly the Minister, will agree that quality will come from getting the frameworks right. In the evidence sessions, Keith Marshall of the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils made that clear when he said:
The key to this is the framework. If we get the framework right, it will ensure that the quality is maintained.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 9, Q19.]
If a generic framework is issued, the quality of all apprenticeship frameworks will be undermined. It will also damage the apprenticeship brand, which I am determined we should avoid. As I said, I know that the Minister is gradually and grudgingly coming to the same conclusion.
A tangential issue is the status of sector skills councils. It was clear from the evidence session that Mr. Marshall, the representative of sector skills councils, was not entirely happy about the way their status is diminished in the Bill; they play little part in it. The Minister is right that they play a large part in the explanatory notes, but I am not sure that that satisfies sector skills councils or us. Sector skills councils are particularly important in the development, publication and implementation of frameworks, which is why they are so pertinent to the amendments and to these clauses.
In the evidence sessions, the Minister for Schools and Learners asked the representative of the sector skills councils:
should we mention that in primary legislation?,
to which Mr. Marshall replied:
You specifically mentioned other organisations and agencies in other parts of the overall system, but not there.
The Minister open-mindedlyI thoughtwent on:
And you would like us to?[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 21, Q60-61.]
Mr. Marshall unequivocally answered that he would.
So those representatives of businessthe Minister spoke fondly of them when we met lastclearly want to be mentioned not just in the explanatory notes, but in detail in the Bill. The Minister surely agrees that the sector skills councils are the bodies to take forward apprenticeship frameworks. If that is the case, why not agree to the amendment?
More significantly, sector skills councils favour tailoring frameworks to one sector. Why, therefore, is there the need to issue apprenticeship frameworks generally? The clause should be specific on that, so that educators, employers, learners and potential learners receive the training that they need and so that they know that they will receive it. It is imperative that the amendment is agreed to.
Once again, I see that my case is beginning to resonate here and elsewhere. We debate the Bill in a context in which the representatives of employers have been sceptical, the champions of adult learning have been doubtful, and the colleges, in the Ministers words, have been surprisingly critical. The Minister seems to stands alone, and I want to assure him by the means and in the detail of todays amendments that he is not alone. We are on his side in trying to make this bad Bill better.

Siôn Simon: I start by addressing the hon. Gentlemans remarks about my stomach. I remind himthis is pertinentof the words of the great reformer and radical William Cobbett, who memorably said that you cannot agitate a man on a full stomach. I was up very early this morning, as is often my custom, and have therefore had two breakfasts since my rising. I have a full stomach and am afraid that I am not susceptible to agitation in the manner he has described. The hon. Gentleman also wondered whether he had succeeded in inciting my feelings or intellect. He is almost beginning to incite some feelings but my intellect remains absolutely steely against his silken words.
Turning to the substance of the matter, I wish to reassure him that there is no such thing as generic apprenticeships and no intention to create them. The word generally in the clause does not in any sense imply generic. The clause enables the Secretary of State to designate a person to issue apprenticeship frameworks in England, either generally or for particular sectors. Clause 16 contains a similar measure for Wales. The frameworks are high-level curricula for an apprenticeship in a specified career and it is essential that the right issuing bodies are identified and maintained in order to ensure that high standards of apprenticeships are preserved.
I understand the intention behind the amendment, which would mean that the Secretary of State could not designate the person to issue frameworks generally across a range of sectors.
Last year, in World-class Apprenticeships: Unlocking talent, building skills for all, we set out our commitment to streamlining and reducing bureaucracy in the process of developing and approving apprenticeship frameworks. Our intention is to designate sector skills councils as English issuing authorities. Working in partnership with standard setting bodies, SSCs will have a key role in ensuring quality apprenticeship frameworks that comply with the specification of apprenticeship standards for England. We look to SSCs to focus their activities on working with employers to increase the number of good quality employer-led apprenticeship places and to support employers in bringing forward frameworks tailored to their business needs.
We welcome the work being led by the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils to develop streamlined arrangements for the development and issuing of apprenticeship frameworks, which will prepare the way for an even brighter future. It is important to recognisethis is the crucial pointthat we do not have full sector skills coverage for every occupation in which there may, occasionally and exceptionally, be a need to have apprenticeship frameworks. It therefore makes sense to retain the possibility, against such an eventuality, that a pan-sector body such as the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils could issue frameworks if necessary.

John Hayes: Is that likely?

Siôn Simon: The assumption is that frameworks will be issued by sector skills councils for their particular sectors. I think that I will have a secondary and then a tertiary assumption, which is not something that I have often had before. The secondary assumption is that all efforts will be made to achieve coherence and simplicity, and to fit every framework that can be so fitted into a definable and discernible sector skills council sector.
The third assumption is that in the cases that do not easily fit the preference will be for an existing sector skills council to lean over and extend itself to try to embrace the anomalous case. Our hope is that those three different hierarchies of possibility will encompass every eventuality. We have tabled the clause simply to allow for the possibility, which we hope will not happen, that the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils needs to issue frameworks that do not fit any existing sector.

John Hayes: Because of the stratified, multi-tiered approach, it is extremely unlikely that the Bill would be used in that way.

Siôn Simon: My judgment is that it is unlikely. Our hope and our preference is that it does not occur. The power exists in case matters cannot be resolved according to the hierarchy of the three different ways that I listed. It makes sense to keep the possibility that a body such as the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils could issue frameworks if necessary. However, the Bill makes clear that at any time only one person may issue frameworks relating to one particular apprenticeship sector.
I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman and given the members of the Committee the assurances that they require so that they will feel able to withdraw the amendment, the purpose and intention of which, as I have said, I understand and appreciate.
I shall speak to two technical Government amendments, one of which, amendment 158, is required to enable the Secretary of State to amend or revoke the designation of a person to issue apprenticeship frameworks. That is necessary in case of future changes in policy or, for example, in the composition or coverage of a sector skills council. Without it, the Secretary of State could not change the designated authority from time to time, as operational requirements dictate. Amendment 165 gives analogous powers to Welsh Ministers.

John Hayes: It was good to have William Cobbett at such an early hour. The Minister, with his estimable literary grasp, will know that it was that great Tory, Dr. Johnson, who said that a lack of manual dexterity constitutes a form of ignorance. The Conservative Benches are committed to the apprenticeship systemto transmit manual dexterity or, as I prefer to put it, to elevate the practicalwhich is why we want the framework to be as tightly constructed as possible.
The Minister gave a well structured argument about how this part of the Bill might come to effect. He said that there were primary, secondary and tertiary levels at which frameworks might be defined. The frailty in what appeared to be a good argument, however, is that the secondary stage of his chronologyhe presented it in a chronological fashioncontradicts the tertiary stage. Sector skills councils need to have the flexibility to step outside their existing remit to embrace new challenges. That is entirely right, because the economy is dynamicincreasingly so as it becomes more advancedas are skills needs. We need to be able to redesign apprenticeship frameworks and to alter the scope of sector skills councils as necessary. If that is what sector skills councils will be able to do, we shall never reach that tertiary stage when the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils has to step in, because in the Ministers secondary stage we are giving sector skills councils the flexibility necessary to do that job themselves.
The Alliance of Sector Skills Councils thinks the same. It does not perceive an occasion on which it would have to override a sector skills council. It sees itself as an umbrella organisation, of course ensuring a degree of consistency; certainly articulating the case for the role of sector skills council; and, yes, communicating the collective voice of sector skills councils on the Bill and other related matters. I am not sure that the alliance would necessarily want the frameworks to be slackened. Indeed, the evidence from Mr. Marshall suggested the oppositethat it did not want what I describe as generic apprenticeships. However, that is the possibilityfaint though it might bethat could result from the well intentioned provision of a well intentioned Minister.

Siôn Simon: I want to restate that there is no question of the unlikely-to-be-used power that we want to give to a body such as the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils overriding the duty on sector skills councils to produce frameworksquite the reverse. We are talking about a situation in which a particular framework cannot find a home, the possibility of a framework needing to be picked up. There is no question of overriding; the hierarchy is the other way around.
There is no question of loosening, slackening or generalising, and everything that the hon. Gentleman said about how apprenticeships are by their very nature sector specific is absolutely right and I agree. However, yesterday I was talking to a parliamentary colleague who did an engineering apprenticeship in the 1950sthe golden days of apprenticeships, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, when an apprenticeship was a proper apprenticeshipand I asked him what the difference was. He said that they were a lot more general than they are now. Given that he defines a good apprenticeship as

Joan Humble: Order. I must interrupt the Minister. He is making an intervention which is becoming a speech.

John Hayes: As I said at the outset, Mrs. Humble, you are firm but fair.
The Minister switches seamlessly, but that apparent seamlessness does not fool Opposition Members. He switches from a chronology to a hierarchy. He started by saying that there was a process which will be exhausted until the point that this power will be used. We then moved to a hierarchical argument. I am not sure that this power would ever be used if the flexibility in his secondary stagewe will use his structure for the sake of claritywere there. I think the sector skills councils should, as he says, expand their scope to take into account dynamic skills needs and a changing remit. That flexibility, if sufficient, would avoid the need for his tertiary level. He said himself that he did not like a three-stage process and that he would have rather have a simpler one. So why not accept this amendment, bolster the power of the sector skills councils to expand their range to respond in the way we both wish they could and introduce a Government amendment to strengthen that part of the Bill?

Siôn Simon: Three points. First, I want to make it clear that the hierarchies and chronologies that I have described are in no sense intended to be a formal part of the process. These are constructs that I have recently invented to try to explain the situation to the Committee as I understand it. Secondly, the hon. Gentlemans dichotomy between a chronology and a hierarchy is entirely false because it is perfectly possible to have a chronological hierarchy. Finally, what does he think we should do if a very valuable framework needs to be made and we cannot find a sector skills council that wants to take ownership of it?

John Hayes: My goodness, we have a range of sector skills councils which covers an immense number of frameworks and disciplines and a wide range of skills. I would expect those sector skills councils to consult on this and certainly to be in discussion with the Government. Surely they should be able to respond and embrace those additional challenges in the way that he describes. Adding this extra elementbe it a hierarchy or not, and I see that he is rushing away from his hierarchical argument, lest anyone feel that they have in these few moments been demoted in some wayis unnecessary. I cannot see why we need all of this complexity. The sector skills councils should be able to do the job. I trust them to do so and I hope that the Minister does too.

Siôn Simon: I will not keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman to restate the same point in different ways but what he has described is exactly what we envisage will happen. All that he disputes is a power that we have put in the Bill just in case it does not happen. It should, and we think it will, happen as he described. However, he surely must agree that it is conceivable that it may not happen, particularly as the sector skills councils have a strict focus on their own sectors that is so disciplined and sector specific.

John Hayes: Let us move up a gear, up the hierarchy and along the chronology, and explore this a little more fully. The truth is that we should not be passing anything we do not need to in this place. We should not add to Bills things that are never going to happen or for distant eventualities that are extremely unlikely. The truth is that we are doubtful about the creation of generic apprenticeships and worry that the apprenticeship brand will be diluted. As I have said before, we think that the Government might even, in their less noble moments, be seduced into doing just that.
We do not want this additional power, which we do not think is useful, and we think that the concern is more than dealt with by the existing structure, perhaps with additional flexibility of the kind the Minister and I both advocate. For that reason, we will press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 158, in clause 11, page 6, line 29, at end insert
( ) A designation under this section may be amended or revoked by the Secretary of State.(Mr. Simon.)

John Hayes: Government amendments 158 and 165 are minor amendments that ensure that the Secretary of State can amend or revoke the designation of a person to issue an apprenticeship framework. That is intended to make the system work and is justified, as the Minister said in his brief words, as an operational requirement. It is operational requirements that often dictate the revocation or amendment linked to an apprenticeship. The question to be asked is what these operational requirements actually are, but the Minister did not make that clear in his opening remarks. What are the circumstances in which the Government would seek to revoke a designation, and to whom would they consider redesignating it?

Joan Humble: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman because we debated that earlier when he moved amendment 21. He should have questioned the Minister when he spoke to Government amendments 158 and 165. At this stage, we are simply formally proposing the amendment.

Amendment 158 agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Submission of draft apprenticeship framework for issue: England

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 100, in clause 14, page 7, line 21, after such, insert reasonable.

Joan Humble: With this we may discuss the following: amendment 101, in clause 14, page 7, line 22, after appropriate, insert
, provided such requirements are not burdensome.
Amendment 102, in clause 14, page 7, line 24, after decision, insert
within two weeks of the making of the decision..

John Hayes: These amendments aim to reduce bureaucracy in the formation of frameworks by ensuring that the information an issuing authority requests from a person developing the draft apprenticeship framework is not too onerous, and that the issuing authority makes the person aware of their decision within two weeks. The hon. Gentleman will know that the priority for many employersparticularly small and medium enterprises, as I know from my experience as a businessmanis the day-to-day running of their business, never more so than in the current economic circumstances. Many SMEs already feel hamstrung by red tape and bureaucracy. I do not need to expand on that at length because Ministers and members of the Committee will be only too aware of the complaints that those businesses and their representative organisations make in that regard. It should therefore be our determined ambition to reduce regulation, except where it is absolutely necessary.
If we are to re-focus apprenticeships to the skills demands that I mentioned in the debate on the earlier amendments and if we are to put apprenticeships at the heart of our response to the skills crisis, it is imperative that employers find the development and deployment of apprenticeships as straightforward as possible. I do not wish to suggest that good apprenticeships are not available now nor that apprentices do not learn important things which add to their employability. There are excellent programmes and frameworks with employers engaged in a full and valuable way. But I am certain that the only way that we can rebuild and rejuvenate the apprenticeship programme more generally is from the bottom up. We must engage SMEs in the necessary spread of apprenticeships. In every village and small town, there are countless businesses that could take on an apprentice, but one barrier to that happening is what they perceive as excessive bureaucracy. It is vitally important that we take that into account and try to improve the Bill by reducing regulation and so add incentive to that bottom-up rejuvenation of the system by SMEs.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs noted that employers find administrative burdens associated with apprenticeships unacceptable and its report, Apprenticeship: a key route to skills found that
Witnesses stressed that procedures for the administration of government funding of apprenticeship had the effect of marginalising employers (Unwin and Fuller Q 77; Ashton p 173).
The draft Apprenticeships Bill took steps to remedy this. As the Minister will know, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee found that
Taking the draft Bill as a whole, we conclude that, for those employers represented by the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, the draft Bill has the potential to deliver two of their key requirements: a reduction in unnecessary bureaucracy through greater flexibility and streamlining of the central government agencies supporting apprenticeships.
The truth is that the merging of the draft Apprenticeships Bill with this Bill means that it now falls a long way short of its potential. We make no bones about itless administration, less bureaucracy is what employers want. We know that from what they have said themselves. The Federation of Small Businesses described cutting red tape and bureaucracy around apprenticeships as a carrot to their developmentthe incentive that I mentioned a few moments ago. The British Chambers of Commerce has said,
For years businesses have made it abundantly clear that they find the paperwork associated with taking on apprentices a real barrier.
The CBI response to world class apprenticeships said that
the removal of unnecessary red tape and greater simplification must be a key focus.
The amendments are small steps to remedy the over-regulation and administrative burden that this provision will place on employers. I repeat: it is desirable but not enough to add apprentices to large businesses that have well established and well respected programmes, such as BT, Honda, Rolls-Royce and others. It is not enough, because that is not the way that we will build enough extra apprenticeships to deliver the skills that our economy needs. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his response.
I want to see 100,000 more apprenticeships. That is why we have set out our policies on the subject in our skills Green Paper. It is built around incentivising small businesses, partly by providing them with funds, but also by removing the barriers. It is about supply-side reform and the amendments go some way towards improving the Bill in that regard.

Alison Seabeck: I know from talking to small businesses in my own constituency that they share some of his concerns. However, I am not clear what is intended by the term reasonable. I am sure that this issue will be raised later in the debate, when the Government defend what reasonable means, but I would be interested to know what it implies.

John Hayes: The test of reasonableness is not unusual in legislation or in law. However, in these terms, I would expect it to take into account what employer representatives felt was acceptable, and what the sector skills councilswhich we mentioned earlier and which are centrally involved in apprenticeship frameworksfelt was tolerable. In discussion with Government, that mix could come to a definition of reasonableness that by all accounts is not what we have now. I have offered some examples of that to the Committee this morning.
Most employersincluding those in the hon. Ladys constituency, which I take careful note ofand those in mine, and their representative organisations, seem tofeel that at the moment we are not being reasonable about regulation, bureaucracy and red tape. To achieve the reasonableness that she personifieswhich I merely seek to emulatewe need to lighten the burden rather than add to it.
The risk of all legislation is that it adds to administrative burdens. Almost by definition, that is the case. As we scrutinise the Bill, we should be determined to strip out all that is not necessary to our shared ambition to make apprenticeships a bigger part of how we respond to the economic downturn and rebuild the nations skills. In that spirit, I ask the hon. Lady, the Minister and others to consider the amendments carefully and I wait to hear what the Minister says with bated breath.

Stephen Williams: I rise briefly to support the amendments. It is obvious that if a business or a training provider puts forward a draft proposal for an apprenticeship framework, there should be information to accompany it. That information should be clear in advance. It is not clear how the business or the training provider will know in advance exactly what they need to provide alongside their application. However, as long as it is clear in advance, that should mitigate any misunderstandings and areas that later need clarification.
If certain areas need to be questioned by the body that will approve the apprenticeship framework, such requests for further information should not be onerous. If the application amounts to a refusal, the refusal notice should be clear and given on a timely basis. I hope that the Minister will clarify the process for the applicant who comes back with a fresh or slightly amended proposal after a refusal. What time scales are envisaged in order to get that apprenticeship framework agreed as soon as possible?

Siôn Simon: I can reassure Opposition Members that we agree entirely that the process of agreeing apprenticeship frameworks needs to be as unbureaucratic and unburdensome as possible. Where we differ in that respect is that we are convinced that the Bill contains such injunctions, which I will come on to explain. However, we equally share the hon. Gentlemans determination that the process be streamlined and effectiveparticularly for small businesses.
Sector skills councils have streamlined the process; they are in the process of making it more streamlined, and will continue to do so. We have reduced the burden of data collection, we have already streamlined the framework developing and issuing process so that employers can develop in-house training programmes as frameworks, provided that they comply with the SASE. We have already asked sector skills councils to streamline processes further in the forthcoming months and years.
Clause 14 sets out the procedure for when individuals and organisations submit draft apprenticeship framework to an issuing authority and request that it be published as a framework. If the issuing authority chooses not to publish it as a framework, then they must give a reason for that decision. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 both aim to ensure that the issuing authority does not require unreasonable or burdensome amounts of information to be submitted alongside the draft framework.
I am sympathetic to those outcomes, but we believe that the Bill will do that job. We included a commitment in World-class Apprenticeships to streamlining the framework development process to make it more user-friendly to providers and organisations and also to make it easier for them to develop frameworks appropriate to their business. That is why the Bill ensures that issuing authorities will be able to require only appropriate information to be provided. If the information requested is unduly burdensome, or unnecessary, it would not be appropriate.
I hope that hon. Members will accept my assurance that this will be a light-touch processonly enough information to ensure that there is sufficient rigour in meeting the requirements set out in the SASE will be required. Rather than imposing a burden on providers and employers, I expect that issuing authorities will work closely with providers and employers to support them in getting their frameworks to that standard as quickly as possible and to focus their efforts on reducing significantly the current lengthy process, which can be involved, before frameworks are available for learners to undertake apprenticeships.
Similarly, we will ensure that the approval process after a draft framework is submitted is as streamlined as possible. However, I am not persuaded that it is sensible to require the framework issuing authority in England to notify those submitting draft apprenticeship frameworks when a draft has been rejected within a specified period of time, as amendment 102 suggests. By applying a time limit, the issuing authority will be held accountable for any breach of the proposed limit, even when circumstances might arise that would reasonably prevent the issuing authority from meeting any specified deadline.
Issuing authorities will be working hand in hand with those who are developing frameworks and there should be no delay in making them aware of areas where the draft framework does not comply with the specification of apprenticeship standards for England. I will expect the issuing authority to proceed quickly in its decision making during that iterative process. Our intention is that, as part of its role in performance managing the sector skills council, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills will ensure the prompt issuing of frameworks.
I now turn to the question from the hon. Member for Bristol, West, about what happens if the sector skills council refuses to issue a framework. If the framework complies properly with the specification of apprenticeships standards in Englandif it fitsthe sector skills council cannot refuse to issue the framework. Where the framework does not fit, the sector skills councils job is to work as closely, quickly and co-operatively as possible with the proposer to help them to make it fit.

John Hayes: What representations has the Minister had from sector skills councils? Have they complained about the bureaucratic burden that deters SMEs and others from engaging with apprenticeships?

Siôn Simon: I personally have not had any such representations. I suppose that I need to remind the hon. Gentleman that I am not the Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships. Therefore it is conceivable that, if such representations have been made, they have been made to the relevant Minister, Lord Young of Norwood Green, in the other place. However, I am pretty nearly 100 per cent. certain that no such representations have been made to him, as they have not been made to me or to the Department in any other way.
In that case, I hope that hon. Members will be persuaded that, given the use of the word appropriate in the Bill, the provisions that they sought to highlight with their amendments are included and that if we amended the Bill as they wanted, it would be tautologous. On that basis, therefore, I ask them to withdraw kindly and graciously their amendments.

John Hayes: It would be unreasonable to press the amendments, given that we are really debating the difference between reasonable and appropriate, which is not just dancing on the head of a pin but on a pin that has a very small head.
On that basis, and having received the Ministers assurances that he is in dialogue with the representatives of businesses, that he shares our ambition and that he acknowledges the remarks that I have quoted from BOC, the Federation of Small Businesses and so on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Transitional provision for apprenticeship frameworks: England

Siôn Simon: I beg to move amendment 159, in clause 15, page 7, line 27, leave out the purposes of this Chapter and insert
all purposes or for purposes specified in the order.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 160 to 162, 164, 167 to 170 and 172.

Siôn Simon: Clause 15 enables the Secretary of State to make an order making certain transitional provisions in relation to apprenticeship frameworks. This is intended to ensure that apprenticeship frameworks that already exist when clause 12 comes into force can be treated as if they are a framework issued under the terms of the Bill. In turn, this is intended to allow a reasonable period for new frameworks to be developed and issued, under the terms of the specification of apprenticeship standards for England, and to ensure that existing apprentices and those who are embarking on apprenticeships over the next few years are not disadvantaged.
Amendment 159 is a technical amendment that will ensure that apprentices who are participating in the apprenticeship scheme in part 4, also known as the 16 to 18 apprenticeship entitlement, can benefit from the transitional provisions included in clause 15. Amendments 160 to 162 and 164 are consequential amendments to clause 15. Amendments 167 to 170 and 172 make the same changes to clause 20, which applies in Wales.

Nick Gibb: As the Minister says, clause 15, as originally drafted before these amendments, says:
The Secretary of State may by order provide for an existing vocational specification to be treated... as if it were an apprenticeship framework.
Obviously, there need to be transitional arrangements. Our concern is about what, precisely, will be in the order. Which existing vocational specifications will become apprenticeships? Again, it is about quality, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned. The concern is to ensure that this is not just another method of creating vast numbers of apprenticeships out of things that are not actually apprenticeships. If the Minister listed all the vocational specifications that he intends to put in the order, it would help the Committee.
The Government amendments seem to broaden the scope of clause 15 further by extending the transitional arrangements to include apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-olds. An assurance from the Minister about quality will help to ensure that the amendments have a swift passage on to the statute book.

Siôn Simon: Existing apprenticeships are all that we are talking about. There is no question of reclassifying anything that is not currently an apprenticeship as an apprenticeship. The regulations will simply specify the various kinds of vocational training linked to employment that can be apprenticeships and define the existing apprenticeships as apprenticeships until transition. Those matters require regulation because the legislation does not exist.

John Hayes: Will programme-led apprenticeships be included?

Siôn Simon: No: as he knows, a programme-led apprenticeship is not defined as an apprenticeship now; we do not count it in our listings of apprenticeships or in our current targets. It is not an apprenticeship under the Bill and it will not be an apprenticeship in the future.
To restate my answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, an apprenticeship that is currently defined as an apprenticeship under the blueprint will, by these regulations, be defined as an apprenticeship for a discrete period. The day after the school leaving date in 2013 is the maximum final point. Until then, current apprenticeships will still be apprenticeships and nothing that is not currently an apprenticeship will be an apprenticeship under these regulations.

Amendment 159 agreed to.

Stephen Williams: I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 15, page 7, line 29, after certificates, insert
following consultation with any institutions involved in the provision of education and training associated with the existing vocational specification..
In fact, we have just had some of the discussion about what courses may be rebadged as apprenticeships that would probably have occurred in the debate on this amendment. The amendments purpose is for providers of the existing provision to be consulted, whatevercourse is rebadged on a transitional basis as qualifying under the framework. The Minister said, in response to the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for South Holland and The Deepings, that this is a transitional arrangement while the Bill, should it be passed, takes effect. That arrangement will lapse, as I understand it, on the summer 2013 school leaving date.
Of course, in the summer of 2013, all sorts of other things are meant to be in place as well: the national entitlement to the new diploma lines and the raising of the education, training and participation age to 17. An important period in education awaits us. In the mean time, there are many other Government targets to be met. There must be a temptation, but not an intention, for a future Ministernot the current Under-Secretaryto acquiesce in the rebadging of the existing provision to meet the requirements of the Bill.
We have tabled the amendment on consultation because there are students or learners-in-work who embarked on a programme of training not envisaging that it would have to meet the requirements of the legislation. There are training providers, which have designed and are teaching vocational courses, that did not envisage that they would have to comply with the provisions of the legislation. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has already asked for examples of such courses. The Minister said that something currently considered as an apprenticeship is the only course envisaged as being rebadged to qualify under the legislation; I hope that he will confirm that. It is essential that if a change is made in order to meet the requirements of the legislation, existing providers are consulted on whether that will have any ramifications for them, or if it is something that they would want to agree to.

Siôn Simon: As I said, clause 15 is an enabling clause to ensure that we have adequate transitional arrangements to protect those apprentices currently training under existing frameworks. There is no question of re-badging anything as an apprenticeship that is not an apprenticeship. There are 180 frameworks, currently available for apprenticeship training, which meet the requirements of the existing blueprint. It is our intention, on introducing the new specification of apprenticeship standards for England in August 2009, to allow sufficient time for sector skills councils, and other organisations, to develop frameworks that are compliant with the new standards.
We have committed to, and just discussed, streamlining the process for issuing frameworks. It is an important and serious business. Quality, as the hon. Gentleman is fond of saying, is also important and so the development and introduction of the new frameworks is not going to happen overnight. We need a transitional period to allow for the new frameworks to be developed. Sector skills councils will be designated as issuing authorities; they will continue to issue frameworks in England. It is right that the 180 existing frameworks continue to be available throughout the transitional period, so that existing and prospective apprentices are not disadvantaged while the new frameworks are developed. To require consultation on individual frameworks, in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would clearly slow that process down. In the terms of his amendment, we would have to consult on the existing frameworks.

John Hayes: Perhaps I could be helpful to the Minister while he seeks, or reads, inspiration. The nub of the argument is about whether he expects, and the Bill facilitates, a growth in the number of apprenticeship frameworks by the translation of some of what is being taught and tested now. In other words, does he anticipate much of a metamorphosis from existing vocational training specifications to apprenticeship frameworks? If he does, is it not important, in line with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, that that type of process is possible?

Siôn Simon: I am not sure if that is the implication of the hon. Member for Bristol, Wests amendment. Ultimately, the number and content of the apprenticeship frameworks will be the responsibility of the employer bodies, the sector skills council. I do not anticipate an immediate expansion in the number of frameworks. It is possible, subject to consultation, that there could even be a slimming-down of the number of frameworks. Ultimately, that will be a matter for employers, through the sector skills councils, to decide.
The point at issue in the hon. Gentlemans amendment is whether we retrospectively consult the stakeholders on whether the existing frameworks, which are about to become obsolete, should be deemed as frameworks for the purposes of the transitional period. We do not believe that we need to do that. It is clear what an existing framework is; it is anything that is a framework under the blueprint. Anything that is a framework under the blueprint will remain a framework. Effectively, what we are talking about is calling a framework a framework.

Stephen Williams: What is also required is some assurance that the re-badging of existing provisionto provision that that meets the requirements of the Billwill not require any change in the delivery of that apprenticeship, or in the training that is part of that apprenticeship, by an existing provider; that is part of the assurance that is being sought. If there will be a change, then that is why there needs to be consultation on its nature. If there was no changeif it is simply a semantic re-badging of something that already exists to something elsethe Minister will have a point in saying that the amendment is unnecessary, but that is not clear at the moment.

Siôn Simon: In that case, that is my fault, because I failed to explain the matter sufficiently clearly. Nothing is being re-badged. Existing apprenticeships will continue to be deemed apprenticeships until all the new frameworks have come inthey do not have to be changed. The frameworks will change over time, as they move to the new arrangements, but the point is that anybody who is currently doing an apprenticeship, or who starts an apprenticeship before the new frameworks have all come inwho is doing, or will start before the end of the period, an old apprenticeship framework under the old blueprint--will still count in exactly the same way as having and doing the apprenticeship that they thought they were doing when they started. That is all that is happening in the transitional arrangement, which will lapse in 2013, as he said.

Stephen Williams: I think the Minister, after a couple of interventions, has clarified the Governments provision. It is a shame that subsection (1) states:
The Secretary of State may by order provide for an existing vocational specification to be treated.
If it said, to an existing apprenticeship framework to be so treated, then the uncertainty would not have arisen.

Siôn Simon: I cannot remember who was speaking and who was intervening, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand the point that he has just made. It took me a little while to get beyond that point, but as he will understand, there are all kinds of arcane legal reasons for that. There is a definition of an existing vocational framework in subsection (5), and I think that the point that he is makingin an ancillary fashionis that currently, we lack legislation such as this one, which enables us to call an apprenticeship, an apprenticeship. So the purpose of this piece of legislationduring the course of which will move to an apprenticeship, where everybody knows exactly what it meansis that during the transitional period, we will have to call a vocational specification an apprenticeship, even though in reality, it always was an apprenticeship.

Stephen Williams: Thank you, Mrs. Humble; you indulged my long intervention. The Minister is right that sometimeshe has been here longer than I have; I have only been here just short of four yearsdraft legislation is opaque. It was not clear to me, but more appropriately, perhaps, it was not clear to many people in the sector, who may have encouraged us to probe that particular pointthat what the Government envisaged was simply a re-designation of an existing provision without any inherent change to provision that qualifies or meets the requirements of the Bill. As the Minister has assured us that all that is intended is that the change is effectively neutralit is just a badging exercise, which does not change the inherent nature of what is being taught or providedI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 160, in clause 15, page 7, line 35, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 159.
161, in clause 15, page 7, line 37, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 159.
162, in clause 15, page 7, line 40, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 159.
163, in clause 15, page 7, line 43, after and insert apprenticeship.

This is a technical drafting amendment to clarify that the reference is to an apprenticeship sector as defined in clause 38.
164, in clause 15, page 7, line 43, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 159.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Welsh issuing authority

Amendment made: 165, in clause 16, page 8, line 25, at end insert
( ) A designation under this section may be amended or revoked by the Welsh Ministers..(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment enables the Welsh Ministers to amend or revoke the designation of a person to issue apprenticeship frameworks.

Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Recognised Welsh frameworks: notification and publication requirements

Siôn Simon: I beg to move amendment 166, in clause 18, page 9, line 8, at beginning insert
in the case of withdrawal otherwise than by the Welsh Ministers,.

This amendment provides that notice of withdrawal of recognition of an apprenticeship framework need only be given to the Welsh Ministers where recognition is withdrawn by someone other than the Welsh Ministers.
The clause makes a number of requirements relating to the publication of apprenticeship frameworks in Wales, and to the notification of Welsh Ministers of any frameworks that have been issued or withdrawn. The requirements are necessary to ensure that the public is kept up to date on the range of frameworks available, and that Welsh Ministers, as the certifying authority in Wales, are kept informed of developments.
As currently drafted, the clause requires that Welsh Ministers be notified of the withdrawal of recognition of an apprenticeship framework, even if, by using their power under clause 17(2)(b), they withdraw recognition of a framework themselves. The amendment makes it clear that Welsh Ministers do not have to notify themselves when they decide to withdraw recognition and there is no Welsh issuing authority in relation to the framework. However, they will still be bound by clause 18(3)(a) to publish a notice stating that recognition has been withdrawn.

John Hayes: As the Minister said, the amendment seeks to correct a muddled clause, but it may take us from a muddle to a mire; I will explain the reasons for that, and I am sure that the Minister will comment on the issue himself. The amendment does little to answer the central question, namely, in what precise circumstances would Welsh Ministers need to withdraw recognition? Clause 16(1)(a) states that, for an apprenticeship framework to be issued, there must be an issuing authority. If that is the case, why would Welsh Ministers ever need to withdraw recognition of a framework, as they are allowed to do in clause 17(2)(b)? That is inconsistent. In what circumstances would Welsh Ministers become the issuing authority and withdraw recognition? Is this not another example of a measure that disempowers issuing authorities as much as it empowers them, and consequently disempowers employers, educators and learners? Whether they be Welsh or otherwise, why would Ministers ever want to act in that way? If the Minister can give a persuasive explanation, we will listen and respond in the same spirit.

Siôn Simon: If a Welsh sector skills council ceases to exist or a framework has to be changed, Welsh Ministers will need the authority to which the hon. Gentleman has referred to make the changes. Under the clause, Welsh Ministers would have to notify themselves formally of having made such a change. That is clearly absurd, hence the need for the amendment.

John Hayes: Just to be clear, this is an emergency power then? The Minister suggested that a framework having to be changed and a sector skills council ceasing to exist were synonymous. If a sector skills council ceases to exist, it might be necessary for a Minister to intervene in the short term. Surely a Minister would not have to intervene if a framework were changed because that is within the competence of the sector skills council.

Siôn Simon: It is not just an emergency power. It is a relatively routine power that will enable Welsh Ministers to make changes that are made by a sector skills council statutory or, as the hon. Gentleman said, to step into the breach if a sector skills council ceases to exist.

John Hayes: So this measure is about giving Welsh Ministers the same competence as Ministers outside Wales. I understand the point about notification. It is clear that there was a muddle in the drafting. However, are we giving Welsh Ministers powers that are different from those of Ministers in England?

Siôn Simon: Yes, in a way. The Welsh situation is very similar, but not identical. In England, the powers will be vested in the chief executive of skills funding under clause 13. The Welsh Assembly Government have chosen to vest the powers in Welsh Ministers, which is why we need this provision. It is a fairly routine provision, which enables the system to work as envisaged. The amendment will just correct a misdraft.

John Hayes: It is the nature of parliamentary scrutiny and of the interface between Ministers and shadow Ministers that on occasion things must be taken on trust. That is appropriate when Ministers offer assurances in good faith, as the Minister has in this matter. I will take what he said in good faith and accept that we are not moving from a muddle to a mire, but simply clearing up a muddle.

Joan Humble: Does the Minister have anything to add?

Siôn Simon: No.

Amendment 166 agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Transitional provision for apprenticeship frameworks: Wales

Amendments made: 167, in clause 20, page 9, line 22, leave out the purposes of this Chapter and insert
all purposes or for purposes specified in the order.

This amendment enables an existing vocational specification to be treated as a recognised Welsh framework for purposes other than those of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Bill.
168, in clause 20, page 9, line 30, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 167.
169, in clause 20, page 9, line 32, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 167.
170, in clause 20, page 9, line 35, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 167.
171, in clause 20, page 9, line 38, after and insert apprenticeship.

This technical drafting amendment makes equivalent provision for Wales to that made by amendment 163.
172, in clause 20, page 9, line 38, leave out , for the purposes of this Chapter,.(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequenl on amendment 167.

Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Duty to prepare and submit draft specification of apprenticeship standards: England

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 21, page 10, line 16, leave out such persons as the Chief Executive thinks appropriate and insert
representatives of industry, employers, sectoral bodies, the further education sector and other persons the Chief Executive thinks appropriate..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 46, in clause 23, page 10, line 40, at end insert
(aa) consult representatives of industry, employers and the further education sector on the proposed new draft modifications..

John Hayes: We are speeding along in a determined fashion, but we are in no sense lacking in our duty to ensure that every aspect of the Bill is scrutinised carefully. To that end, I am happy to move the amendment. It is a drafting amendment to ensure that in the consultation process on apprenticeship standards the chief executive officer of Skills Funding must consult the representatives of industry and education, rather than merely such persons as the Chief Executive thinks appropriate, as the Bill currently requires. The amendment is important for ensuring that apprenticeship standards and any subsequent modification to those standards are based on what employers actually want and what educators can deliver. The marriage between employer need and the role of colleges and other providers is critical, and the consultation process in those terms is also important.
The amendment would ensure that apprenticeships will be representative, responsive and realistic. If the Government accept the amendment, we hope that it will go some way to allaying the fears of employers and others about the imposition of arbitrary standards identified in Committee by the witnesses from both the CBI and, in particular, the British Chambers of Commerce. The Opposition want to ensure that apprenticeships are neither developed in a top-down fashion, nor bound by unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy, but that they are instead developed in consultation with all those who will deliver and participate in them, driving up the quality and sustainability of individual apprenticeships and the apprenticeship brand as a whole.
On a purely technical note, the amendment will also ensure that considerably less bureaucracy is involved in the development of apprenticeship frameworks by ensuring that the standards and frameworks are developed with employers and educators. The absence of consultation is likely to make the process more bureaucratic because it will not be as responsive.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at One oclock.